(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.01.22 2014구합1871

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.01.22 2014구합1871

유족급여및장의비부지급처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Around 14:00 on December 25, 2012, the Plaintiff’s husband B was engaged in replacing the aging banner of D schools located on the second floor of the building (hereinafter “instant schools”) from the outer wall of the seventh floor of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C, and died at around 14:05 on the same day.

B. On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for compensation for survivors and funeral expenses on the ground that the death of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) constituted occupational accidents. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant rendered a decision on the payment of compensation for survivors and funeral expenses on the ground that “The deceased is a contractor who contracted to perform all duties concerning the replacement of signboards and placards from the instant school, which is the project owner, and the total cost is KRW 122,00,000, total construction cost performed by a person who is not the constructor, and is not subject to the payment of survivors’ benefits and funeral expenses” on the ground that the death of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) constitutes occupational accidents.

(hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 【Ground for Recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i) in the case of the Deceased, the production of banner was conducted by a separate independent banner manufacturer, the replacement work at the site was conducted by receiving daily allowances from the school of this case, which is the ordering place, and the Deceased did not have any fact that it belongs to the manufacturing enterprise, and the daily allowances of the Deceased were received from the said school later by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the deceased was not treated as a whole after being awarded a contract for the production and installation of banner, but only received daily allowances from the school of this case.

Sheblap installation work cannot be deemed as a kind of construction business, and it is unfair for the defendant to judge that the work of the deceased falls under the construction business.

B. It is as stated in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

C. (i) The Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.

참조조문

-산업재해보상보험법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2013.07.12 2013구단197

-광주지방법원 2015.04.09 2013구단10505

-광주고등법원(전주) 2015.06.08 2014누1005

-부산지방법원 2008.9.10.선고 2008구단222 판결

-서울행정법원 2015.04.03 2013구합64523